U.S. intelligence: Iran is not working on a bomb; but W says they're still a threat

[elucidator]

Hardly matters. If he wants to start a war, he can do it, and once we’re in it, we’re in it. Nobody in their right mind is going to start a war with us. Which, regretably, is not to say it can’t happen, only that it would be insane.

Over at* Washington Monthly * http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_12/012632.php
we have this interesting bit…

…but it turns out that a couple of months ago both of them began parsing their language very, very carefully, with the goal of (a) making Iran continue to look as dangerous as possible while (b) not directly contradicting the NIE — just in case it ever became public and someone called them on it…

(Standard warning! Left-center site, tighty righties should proceed Shields Up…)

Links to such are included at the site, and I think they make a pretty strong case that Cheney and Bush started installing trap doors and weasel routes in anticipation of just such an eventuality.

[elucidator]

Just for entertainment, a bit like one of the *Dawn of the Dead * series, we have the certifiable loon, Norman Podhoretz…

This nugget stands out, like a pearl gleaming in a cow flop…

…But I entertain an even darker suspicion. It is that the intelligence community, which has for some years now been leaking material calculated to undermine George W. Bush, is doing it again…

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/podhoretz/1474

(I would proffer a “Shields Up” advisory, but I read the whole thing without any ill greebs or kitang! kitang! kitang!..)

[flickster]

How much real faith can any of us put into a US Intelligence Agency Report after the number of years they beat the drum about WMD in Iraq (including pre-Bush)?

[Kevbo]

duplicate post deleted

[John_Mace]

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
I hope so, but there’s so much bad blood on both sides, and it would be problematic to have Iran and Israel as allies at the same time. (Our ally SA has anti-Israeli positions too, of course, but they haven’t been really loud about it for a long time.)
[/QUOTE]

Which is one reason I’d like to see Obama as our next president. He doesn’t carry near as much baggage on these types of issues as the other main contenders. I don’t think he has much of a chance of winning this time, however. Some chance, but not much of one.

And it’s about time we distance ourselves a bit from Israel. They need to dismantle those damn settlements, unilaterally, and we should make any future aid we give them contingent on that. As for Saudi Arabia, well they have lots of oils so we’re stuck with them at least in the short term.

[chappachula]

I’d just like to point out how the exact same facts can be interpreted with meanings that are 180 degrees opposed to each other.
compare:

1. The OP’s link says"Iran is not working on a bomb"

2. Another newspaper’s headline says “Iran to have nuclear weapons by 2015”.

So whose interpretation do you accept?
As mks57 said in his post, you need to read carefully.

Iran will eventually get its nukes. It may be best if George Bush would not talk about it, but we shouldn’t deny that it will soon happen.

This is the Hebrew-language link from a major newspaper in Israel.
The translation of the first paragraph is:

Iran to have nuclear bomb only by 2015.
American Intelligence agencies have published a comprehensive report on the Iranian nuclear program, and have reached a surprising conclusion: Iran is still almost a decade away from producing a nuclear bomb. Recently the head of the CIA had said that Iran was only 5 years away from having the bomb.

( I realize that it’s not polite to post foreign language cites. I hope my translation is acceptable; even though other Dopers can’t read it, they can still evaluate the logic behind it. I don’t want to make an issue over sources and cites; I’m just trying to show how the facts do not automatically support the OP’s claim that Iran is harmless and W is wrong to still consider it a threat.)

[Ravenman]

[QUOTE=chappachula]
Iran will eventually get its nukes. It may be best if George Bush would not talk about it, but we shouldn’t deny that it will soon happen.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think it is inevitable. Libya, South Africa, and I believe Brazil had nuclear weapons programs at some point and they gave them up. Iraq abandoned its nuclear weapons program years before we invaded. Heck, if the NIE is right, Iran has already put its plans to build a weapon on hiatus.

Just because Iran is a bad actor doesn’t mean that it cannot be dissuaded from getting a nuclear weapon.

[BrainGlutton]

[QUOTE=Ravenman]
I don’t think it is inevitable. Libya, South Africa, and I believe Brazil had nuclear weapons programs at some point and they gave them up. Iraq abandoned its nuclear weapons program years before we invaded. Heck, if the NIE is right, Iran has already put its plans to build a weapon on hiatus.

Just because Iran is a bad actor doesn’t mean that it cannot be dissuaded from getting a nuclear weapon.
[/QUOTE]

That would have a better chance of success if it were part of a multilateral nuclear-arms nonproliferation-and-reduction effort involving all the major and minor nuclear powers, in which the U.S., as the leading nuclear power, could take the lead.

Then the only powers with nukes will be the purple monkeys flying out of my ass.

[Lobohan]

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Then the only powers with nukes will be the purple monkeys flying out of my ass.
[/QUOTE]

I am not a doctor, but you should have that looked at.

[John_Mace]

[QUOTE=elucidator]
Links to such are included at the site, and I think they make a pretty strong case that Cheney and Bush started installing trap doors and weasel routes in anticipation of just such an eventuality.
[/QUOTE]

That’s a “pretty strong case”? I went to the link about Bush, and they gave one instance, from October, where he said “hav[ing] the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon.” Pretty much the same for Cheney-- one quote from 6 weeks ago. From that they conclude that Bush and Cheney were “briefed on the new intel… sometime in July or August.”

I’d hate to see what you’d consider a weak case…

[davidm]

[QUOTE=flickster]
How much real faith can any of us put into a US Intelligence Agency Report after the number of years they beat the drum about WMD in Iraq (including pre-Bush)?
[/QUOTE]

So then we should attack Iran? Based on what?

[flickster]

[QUOTE=davidm]
So then we should attack Iran? Based on what?
[/QUOTE]

That’s not what I said.

[FinnAgain]

Just in the interest of keepings things honest…

First of all, the actual PDF. The first thing an attentive reader will notice is that the NIE went to great lengths to make it perfectly clear that they were talking about relative certainties and probabilities. Pay particular attention to page five of the PDF, and see if those trying to sell you on a certain viewpoint (NIE says no Iranian nuclear weapons program) are bullshitting you.

After you read the actual report, it should be glaringly obvious that " U.S. intelligence: Iran is not working on a bomb" is either a deliberate falsehood or a display of ignorance about what the NIE actually said. The NIE said nothing resembling a definite statement that Iran does not have a weapons program, and I’ll be happy to provide quotes in a moment.

We assess with high confidence that until fall 2003, Iranian military entities were working under government direction to develop nuclear weapons.

We judge with high confidence that the halt lasted at least several years. (Because of intelligence gaps discussed elsewhere in this Estimate, however, DOE and the NIC assess with only moderate confidence that the halt to those activities represents a halt to Iran’s entire nuclear weapons program.)

We assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.

We continue to assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Iran does not currently have a nuclear weapon.

Now… does that sound at all like “U.S. intelligence: Iran is not working on a bomb”? Or something more like ‘U.S. intelligence: moderately sure that Iran does not have a current nuclear weapons program’? Knowing, especially, that even the IAEA has said that Iran has been holding back evidence and they cannot confirm the the nature of the totality of Iran’s nuclear program?

Just wanted to set the record straight as I don’t see a retraction from the OP as being forthcoming.

[elucidator]

[QUOTE=John Mace]
That’s a “pretty strong case”? I went to the link about Bush, and they gave one instance, from October…I’d hate to see what you’d consider a weak case…
[/QUOTE]

Two pretty clear instances, but this is a matter of interpretation anyway. A skilled parse technician could explain those away, interpretation being a form of mind reading. There are no facts to offer, John, simply quotes that are subject to manipulation. Weak case, strong case, it’s a matter of viewpoint, isn’t it? I might have been better advised for somewhat weaker tea than “strong case”, if you really think that matters to anyone.

But thank you for sharing that.

[elucidator]

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
…Now… does that sound at all like “U.S. intelligence: Iran is not working on a bomb”?..
[/quote]

Why, yes, it does. They stopped in 2003, haven’t restarted to date, or at least to “mid-2007”. And no, they don’t know what Iran will do, which is entirely meaningless, we don’t know what Belgium will do, or Sri Lanka. So?

…Or something more like ‘U.S. intelligence: moderately sure that Iran does not have a current nuclear weapons program’?..

Well, yeah. Point being what, that they don’t have an affidavit from God Almighty, countersigned by Gabriel?

…Knowing, especially, that even the IAEA has said that Iran has been holding back evidence and they cannot confirm the the nature of the totality of Iran’s nuclear program?..

Not bad, Finn. You create evidence out of the absence thereof.

…Just wanted to set the record straight as I don’t see a retraction from the OP as being forthcoming.

Always good to end strong, you’re probably right, you won’t be getting a retraction.

Allow me. BG, you should have said “probably” but you didn’t! Shame! Bad BG, bad!! Go lay down by your water dish!

[Bryan_Ekers]

Heck, by 2015 I could have nukes.

Well, maybe one…

[elucidator]

Montreal, eh? That’s in Canada, right? Hmmmm. Longest unguarded border in the world. Speak French. Anne Murray. Wake up, America!

[vivalostwages]

[QUOTE=AskNott]
No matter how hard I squint, I can’t puzzle out the claim that the “knowledge” of how to make nuclear weapons makes Iran dangerous. How would we eliminate such a danger? Wouldn’t we have to kill every Iranian clever enough to Google “how to make a nuclear weapon”?

Bush/Cheney are undeterred in their quest to destroy another country before the end of the term. They will lower the bar as far as it takes. Evidence be damned, those guys are dangerous. They “know” things.
[/QUOTE]

Well, after all, Iran is next on The List. Syria, Venezuela, and North Korea are on That List as well, but I’m not sure of the numerical order.

[FinnAgain]

[QUOTE=elucidator]
Why, yes, it does.
[/quote]

Interesting. It only sounds the same if someone knows so little of English as to be unable to distinguish “moderately certain” from “certain”. Otherwise, a person who substituted the second for the first would be lying in support of a political position.

You do know enough about English to distinguish how “moderately certain” differs from “certain”, yes?

[QUOTE=elucidator]

They stopped in 2003, haven’t restarted to date, or at least to “mid-2007”
[/quote]

Interesting, as the NIE doesn’t say that and you’re making stuff up.

Again, I find it beyond belief that you honestly are unable to read the NIE report when I just quoted it. The report clearly states that they can only be ‘moderately’ certain that the halt for “several years” consisted of all of Iran’s efforts are weaponization.

And yet you declare, as a definite, that they halted such endeavors in 2003. Again, it’s binary. Either you do not understand what the word “moderately” means, or you are lying.

[QUOTE=elucidator]

And no, they don’t know what Iran will do, which is entirely meaningless, we don’t know what Belgium will do, or Sri Lanka. So?
[/quote]

No no, I didn’t order one of your patently dishonest, deceptive pieces of obfuscation.

Again, just like I find it impossible to believe that you don’t understand the difference between definitive certainty and a ‘moderately sure assessment’, I find it impossible to believe that you honestly don’t understand that Iran and Belgium aren’t fungible.

Again it’s binary, and again you show that honesty isn’t high up on your list of priorities.

[QUOTE=elucidator]

Well, yeah. Point being what, that they don’t have an affidavit from God Almighty, countersigned by Gabriel?
[/quote]

Yet again, it’s binary. Do you really and truly not understand why casting ‘moderately certain’ conclusions as definitely certain statements is dishonest? Or are you slinging bullshit? Are you honestly and truly confused as to why, when the NIE says “however, DOE and the NIC assess with only moderate confidence that the halt to those activities represents a halt to Iran’s entire nuclear weapons program.” and you say “They stopped in 2003, haven’t restarted to date”, you are saying something that isn’t supported by the facts? Or do you know that it’s not supported by the facts, but you don’t care about the truth as long as you can repeat your political position?

Do I even need to ask?

[QUOTE=elucidator]

Not bad, Finn. You create evidence out of the absence thereof.
[/quote]

And yet again it’s binary. Do you honestly believe I have created or put forward any evidence based on absence of evidence? Or are you lying, yet again, and you know full well that I only stated that the gaps in our knowledge preclude any definitely certain statements?

[QUOTE=elucidator]
you’re probably right, you won’t be getting a retraction.
Allow me. BG, you should have said “probably” but you didn’t!
[/quote]

Yes, because there is such a slight, tiny difference between the NIE saying something is definite and certain and them saying that there is a ‘moderate’ probability that it’s the case.
You really are confused on this point, you’re not just slinging bull. Nopers. Nah unh.

Anyways, since you obviously have no desire to behave honestly let alone engage in actual debate instead of your normal games, I’ll give you the attention you deserve in the future of this thread. Adios.

[elucidator]

[QUOTE=vivalostwages]
Well, after all, Iran is next on The List. Syria, Venezuela, and North Korea are on That List as well, but I’m not sure of the numerical order.
[/QUOTE]

Iran was on The List
The List is long!
Dirac Angestun Gesept!